New Secondary Schools for Richmond 2

[BayJay]

I'm starting this new thread because the other one of the same name has filled up.

parrich: re double counting; the Free School saays: ' . . parents may sign any number of forms for different possible Free schools . .'.

DfE say: [[https://sites.google.com/site/hamptonchurchschool/another-school How will my application be assessed? It will be considered both on its own merits and in comparison to other applications submitted. All applications will be assessed against our published criteria and a range of other contextual factors including, but not limited to: the age range of the Free School; its overall cost and value for money; the level of deprivation in the community that it serves; and the standard of education in local schools

Short-listed applicants will be called for an interview to explain aspects of their proposal where government officials, education advisers, and finance experts require further clarification. Being invited to interview does not guarantee that your application will ultimately be successful.]]

and they look for Strong and verifiable evidence of demand from local parents confirming they would choose the proposed school for their children, to a point where the school would be oversubscribed or at full capacity in its first year of operation.

Thanks Bayjay and Chris for this guidance. In all this it seems that DfE looks at a number of factors. And any applicant will only show the positive side of their case - I doubt the Maharishi's will show the Dfe the controversial elements of their proposals or the oncerns that many local people have raised around their offer.
So the process has some major shortcomings . A fair evaluation of any new free school proposal should objectively look at the positive and negative effects and take into account views of all the locals. Its difficult to see how the Dfe can make a judgement without understanding the ground realities south of Oldfield

I'm surprised that overall shortage of school places isn't one of the main factors listed if local authorities now have no other way of being able to open a new school. I would have thought that school proposals from LB Richmond could be at a disadvantage if the level of deprivation and the standard of education in local schools (presumably meaning they are not very good) are two of the most important factors taken into account . How much weight do they give to the support of the local authority for the proposal? Maybe not much if they are hoping that many applications will come from groups of aspirant parents who are fed up with low standards in local authority schools?

Lottie, interestingly Michael Gove specifically mentioned Richmond as a priority area for free schools in a speech he made to a Conservative fringe meeting. I can't find the original speech, but it's been widely quoted, for example here.

BayJay: Gove didn?tsay that; What he is reported to have said is: ? . . As for London, at least 50 free schools will open in Londonwithin four years, according to the Education Secretary. He said tens of millions of pounds will also be spent on creating new schools or classrooms in boroughs where there is a shortage of places such as in Kingston, Sutton and Richmond in west London . . ?.

So Richmond is cited as somewhere that needs extra classrooms not free schools; it certainly does but actually less than say Hounslow where the birth rate has risen much higher. My guess is that Gove named these boroughs because he he knew that Tories from there were in the audience - there are few Tories in Hounslow so it was left out.

It?s bound to be cheaper to expand capacity by adding extra classrooms to existing schools so this where any new money for Richmond will be channeled. In East Twickenham St Mary?s Primary school has been expanded twice, first by moving the Infants onto a new site next to Orleans High School and now by extra classrooms on the Amyand Road (St John?s hospital) site. Perhaps the same model could be adopted in Hampton? I don?t know how practical this would be.

RISC have published a letter from Nick Whitfield, LBRuT Director of Education replying to their letter of February 06.

RISC write: ? . .Their reply accepts that the new Act is now in force (our key point), but they also claim that it still allows them to accept a proposal from the church for Voluntary Aided schools (which is questionable) . . So the legal position is ambiguous and we are doing some more digging . . ?

Good clarification on the Free School speech Chris. However, Richmond council are assuming Gove was referring to Free School places too. See paragraph 4.13 of their secondary school admissions forecast.

By the way, the three free schools referred to in that paragraph should actually have only been one free school (the Maharishi). Though obviously ours would now be a second one.

Chris - what is the Lib Dem view on the legal position - surely you have access to the powers to be in your coalition govt to seek some answers. I it is in violation of your national policy or coalition agreement. I am also waiting for a response from my councillor !

Sorry a statement got deleted accidentally in my previous post. I meant to ask what is the Lib Dem response to the Catholic VA school proposed by the Council at Clifden - that is in violation of your national policy or coalition agreement

Is Richmond free school applying this year ?

Is Richmond free school applying this year ?
Their website is no longer up and running, and they haven't been promoting their proposal, as far as I'm aware. Plus their proposed site at the sorting office has been sold. If they were turned down last time due to lack of proven demand then they would have needed to do some promotion before re-submitting it to get the numbers up.

Akhan: the Lib Dem view of the RISC legal challenge is that it is up to RISC to make its case; they will express no opinion on the matter. Their view of the the Catholic VA school was set out by Cllr Malcom Eady back in July: " . . We support the Catholic archdiocese's wish for a state Catholic Secondary school in the borough, but, with uncertainties over available resources, it should not be at the expense of community secondary school provision. The latter must have the first call on available public money and land. I hope the Government will fund both."

Liberal Democrat Policy states: ? . . (we) would allow the creation of new faith schools. However they would not be able to discriminate by selecting on the basis of faith. Existing faith schools, many of which select on the basis of faith, would be allowed to continue using faith based selection criteria providing that they could demonstrate the inclusiveness of their intakes . . ?

The coalition agreement included an education bill, now the Education Act 2011 and in force but not it seems in this borough.

Thanks Chris - We expect the Lib Dems to hold Richmond to account on the Co-alition agreement . How will they do this ?

Akhan: I am unclear what point you are making. The coalition agreement does not apply to what the council decides.

The 2010 borough election gave the Tories a 4-year term to do what what they wish, subject to law. The Lib Dem opposition can comment on what they do and make them explain and justify it at meetings of the scrutiny committees (which ? . . scrutinise the decisions made by the Council?s Cabinet and Cabinet Members (and) review the policies and services of the Council and other public bodies in the area, suggesting improvements where they are needed . . ) but they cannot stop them going ahead.

Have a look at the Agenda of the Education and Children?s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Wednesday, 8 February 2012. The minutes will be published before the end of the month.

The Agenda includes the Minutes of the Scrutiny Committee meeting held on November 21, from which comes: . . 32. Secondary School Places . . Due to the small margin for errors in the up-take figures, some members of the Committee suggested that the variability of the reports figures be highlighted to Cabinet. However, the majority of members did not hold the same view. The Cabinet Member for Schools assured the Committee the figures had been very well thought out, but he would ensure that every variable had been considered and nothing overlooked, before a report was sent to Cabinet for approval. It was RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Does anyone know when/if the council will publish the data regarding this year's cohort of secondary applicants? Number of applicants, distance etc that sort of thing. Y6 parents and children are notified next week what school has been allocated, bit wondered if any general figures would be publically available.

Cat2405: A report on the 2011/12 secondary admissions will probably go to the Education . . Scrutiny Committee on 19 March. If so it will be published on line 5 days beforehand.

Last year a report went to the April 07 meeting: Agenda and Minutes; Report with Appendix.

One does not need to be a professsional in education to see through the small margin for errors and the unrealistic assumptions in their calculations. Its clear that the nos have been fudged to support that the only reasonable option for a new school is a Catholic VA school. It was a predetermined outcome and I doubt that Hodgins means what he says that every variable was considered. Does he think we are all stupid enough to believe those nos?

Their most ridiculous assertion is that Hounslow and Kingston students will leave Richmond schools when they have an ever increasing birth rate and demand.

ChrisSquire - Excellent links, many thanks. Just the information I was after

Are there also stats that show where our pupils wents from primary to secondary ?

Jeev, unfortunately that info isn't available on a borough-wide basis. Some of the primaries publish the info on their websites, and this thread has linked to a few examples of that.

Here are numbers for my local Junior, St Stephen?s:

Analysis of Destination Schools for September 2011:
Total in Year 6 - 81:
Orleans Park 62; Waldegrave 4; HCC 1; Gumley House 1; St Mark's 1.
Private: Hampton 4; Kingston Grammar 2; LEH 1; St Catherine's 1; Surbiton High 1; Moved away 2.

leaving 1 unaccounted for.

The Vineyard Primary School Profile 2008 says: ? . . Approximately half of our children go to local state schools, some to the independent sector and some to grammar; schools:

State Schools: Christ's 7; Grey Court 2; Shene 3; Tiffin Boys 1; Waldegrave (girls only) 15.
Independent Schools: Canbury 1; Hampton (boys only) 3; Ibstock 1; Kingston Grammar 6; Latymer 7; Putney Park (girls only) 1; St James 2; Surbiton High (girls only) 3.?

I also looked at St Mary?s Twickenham but found nothing. Their pattern of transfers is probably very similar to St Stephen?s: 80 % to Orleans High.

[I'll leave the remaining 37 schools for someone else to do.

There's a different figure for St Stephen's figures going to Orleans Park in the council link school consultation document (2.5) - 46 allocated OP not 62 as on the school website.

The council documents suggests half or more of Ham school pupils go to Grey Court, and similarly of Collis, St John the Baptist and St Mary's & St Peter's to Teddington.

At Barnes and East Sheen about 40% go to RPA or Christ's and 40% private (rest elsewhere). At Sheen Mount just over half go private and up to a quarter go to Christ's.

At Hampton Hill about two-thirds go to Waldegrave or Hampton Academy.